That's right. New reports are saying that there is a possibility a movie sequel to Perks of Being a Wallflower could be in the works. Emma Watson is reportedly in for the movie. It would focus on what happens to the characters ten years down the road. What do you think of this idea? I can see two unique sides of the situation.
First, there are people loving this idea. Some people love sequels. These are usually the same people who have not read the original work that some films are based on. Not always, but sometimes. This book is great and the movie is well done, so fans are bound to want more from the storyline.
Second, there are the loyal fans to the original piece of work (these people include me) who are screaming in their heads: "No! No! No!" The book is a cult phenomenon for young teenagers who worked through their problems and feelings of lonesomeness by recognizing similar characteristics in Charlie. There is a great masterpiece created in that book and although you want to know where the characters will venture to and accomplish in their life, there is complete closure within the text. The movie is great, but why does Hollywood always find the need to create a sequel? It's something that I will never understand. As a loyal fan to almost all movies, I really have fallen in love with some sequels. Trust me, Aladdin and the King of Thieves is almost as good as the original in a cooky way. The Toy Story sequels are fantastic (and there might a fourth film in the works). But most sequels flop and there is no need for them if a movie is done well. As humans, we want all the answers and because of chemicals in our brain we have a desire to know what happens to fictional characters. But, this does not mean that it needs to be fulfilled. We can also fulfill the same desire by watching the movie over again, which has been proven to boost your mood FYI. I am not a fan of this sequel. I love Emma Watson and the other young talents featured in this film. But, it's an unnecessary way for the producers and the movie company to make more money.
First, there are people loving this idea. Some people love sequels. These are usually the same people who have not read the original work that some films are based on. Not always, but sometimes. This book is great and the movie is well done, so fans are bound to want more from the storyline.
Second, there are the loyal fans to the original piece of work (these people include me) who are screaming in their heads: "No! No! No!" The book is a cult phenomenon for young teenagers who worked through their problems and feelings of lonesomeness by recognizing similar characteristics in Charlie. There is a great masterpiece created in that book and although you want to know where the characters will venture to and accomplish in their life, there is complete closure within the text. The movie is great, but why does Hollywood always find the need to create a sequel? It's something that I will never understand. As a loyal fan to almost all movies, I really have fallen in love with some sequels. Trust me, Aladdin and the King of Thieves is almost as good as the original in a cooky way. The Toy Story sequels are fantastic (and there might a fourth film in the works). But most sequels flop and there is no need for them if a movie is done well. As humans, we want all the answers and because of chemicals in our brain we have a desire to know what happens to fictional characters. But, this does not mean that it needs to be fulfilled. We can also fulfill the same desire by watching the movie over again, which has been proven to boost your mood FYI. I am not a fan of this sequel. I love Emma Watson and the other young talents featured in this film. But, it's an unnecessary way for the producers and the movie company to make more money.
No comments:
Post a Comment